Frieser Legal

Category: Uncategorized

  • UNLV Quarterback Matthew Sluka’s Failed NIL Agreement and the Ensuing Legal Ramifications

    On September 25, 2024, UNLV starting quarterback Matthew Sluka announced that he would be departing from the program due to broken promises regarding compensation that was promised to him in an NIL agreement with the university’s collective. Despite leading the Rebels to a 3-0 start, Sluka will sit out for the remainder of the season as a redshirt and will enter the transfer portal in December. The NCAA’s Bylaw 12 allows football student-athletes to compete in up to four games in a season without utilizing one of their four years of collegiate eligibility. Additionally, a handful of other football student-athletes likewise chose to redshirt after only four games to retain an additional year of eligibility.

    Sluka’s Backstory

    Sluka started his college football career at Holy Cross University, an FCS school, and after a prolific 2023 season, opted to transfer to UNLV. Sluka’s NIL representative, Marcus Cromartie, who is also licensed by the NFLPA as a player agent, stated that Sluka’s departure from UNLV was due to the university’s (and its NIL collective’s) failure to uphold its commitment to pay Sluka a minimum of $100,000 in NIL compensation. Cromartie claims that Sluka only received $3,000. Bob Sluka, Matt Sluka’s father, has been vocal since his son opted to leave mid-season, and further seconded Cromartie’s assessment of the situation. Specifically, Bob Sluka alleges that UNLV offensive coordinator, Brennan Marion, among other UNLV assistant coaches, stated that the $100,000 payment would not be an issue, further enticing Matt Sluka to attend UNLV in the offseason. 

    NCAA’s Redshirt Rules

    It is worth noting that Sluka’s decision to transfer after only three games was an effort to retain an additional year of eligibility under NCAA rules. When Sluka arrived at UNLV, it was projected to be his fifth and final season. He had never taken a redshirt season and was granted an extra season of eligibility by the NCAA’s blanket waiver for the 2020 seasons, which took place during the COVID-19 pandemic. College football players can play four games or fewer in a season and redshirt, without utilizing a year of eligibility. Thus, by only participating in three games in the 2024 season, and because Sluka has never previously exhausted his one redshirt season, he can opt out for the remainder of the year and still maintain his NCAA eligibility for the 2025 season.

    NIL Collectives

    One of the principal considerations at issue stems from where exactly NIL compensation comes from. The NCAA and many state NIL laws still uphold a strict prohibition on “pay-for-play,” meaning that student athletes are precluded from receiving compensation for their athletic performance. Furthermore, student athletes cannot be offered money directly by a university merely for enrolling or remaining enrolled at a particular institution.

    On the other hand, NIL collectives are school-specific, independent organizations that can enter into contracts with student athletes and pay them an agreed amount of compensation, typically for a set of deliverables. However, these NIL collective agreements are not binding employment contracts and are negotiated by the student athlete and the collective, without direct university involvement. Of course, this structure is likely to change after the House settlement is finalized and universities may directly share revenue with student-athletes.

    The NIL Agreement between Sluka and the UNLV Collective

    While Sluka alleges that he had agreed to $100,000 in NIL compensation, the Friends of UNLV—the school’s NIL collective—stated that it never negotiated an NIL agreement with Sluka. Rather, these discussions were between Sluka and the UNLV coaching staff. Moreover, the alleged agreement between Sluka and UNLV was purely verbal in nature, rendering no evidence of a written contract between the parties.

    The Contract Implications

    As it relates to Sluka’s case, the first major concern is the nature of the contract itself. Even though oral contracts are not invalid per se, they are subject to heightened scrutiny and requirements. Significantly, Nevada Revised Statutes section 111.220 states that contracts not in writing are invalid if they are not performed in one year following the creation of the contract. For Sluka, in order for him to enforce this alleged NIL agreement, he is required to show that both parties could fulfill their respective obligations in under one year. Because of the absence of many pertinent details in Sluka’s contract, it may be difficult to ascertain when this “clock” started ticking.

    Marcus Cromartie alleges that the agreement was put in place in January of 2024. However, for an NIL agreement to be signed, the student athlete has to be officially enrolled at the school. Because Sluka was not formally enrolled until nearly seven months later, there is uncertainty as to whether the oral agreement commenced in January or when Sluka enrolled months later. An additional complexity is determining when the contract was set to expire; for example, this could have been at the end of the 2024 football season or at the end of the academic year altogether. Because nothing has been put in writing, there are numerous outstanding questions regarding the term and validity of the agreed upon provisions.

    Relevant NCAA Rules

    Given the NCAA’s restrictions on “pay for play,” if the agreement is determined to have been purely a deal to entice Sluka to play football at UNLV, the agreement may be found unenforceable on public policy grounds being that it violates NCAA regulations. According to Bob Sluka, UNLV head coach Barry Odom has asserted that the offer is invalid because it did not come from Odom himself, entailing that the UNLV assistant coaches had invalid authority in offering the contract to begin with. There is also ambiguity surrounding the capacity of coaches to enter into a NIL contract with a player on a collective’s behalf.

    NCAA Division I, Bylaw 11 states that head coaches are presumably responsible for the actions of assistant coaches and thus, such actions taken by assistant coaches can be attributable to a head coach. As a result, another factual question would arise as to whether the UNLV assistant coaches have exercised the practice of negotiating NIL agreements in the past.

    Potential Legal Remedies

    If we assume Sluka is unable to prove there was an enforceable contract, there could still be other contractual remedies available such as detrimental reliance and promissory estoppel, etc., further implicating UNLV to follow through with their commitment. Equally important, such remedies may be difficult to prove given the absence of a written contract in the first place. Moreover, a court may also be hesitant to conclude that a reasonable person would enter into a six-figure contract that was not in writing, rendering it unreasonable to engage in an oral contract of such magnitude.

    More likely than not, neither party will go into court to try to enforce the unwritten NIL contract. Although Sluka has not been paid as promised, he has presumably no longer met his end of the bargain either. Sluka retains his additional year of eligibility because of the NCAA’s redshirt rules, and will find a new institution in the next NCAA transfer portal window. Although next time, he might opt for a written NIL contract prior to enrolling.

    What does the Future hold for NIL Agreement Disputes?

    Looking ahead, the future of NIL in college athletics still remains very much in limbo. Charlie Baker, the NCAA President, posted on social media following Sluka’s decision and continued his call upon Congress to implement guidelines and a framework to regulate NIL deals in college athletics. While Baker speculates that the current litigation and settlement actions involving the NCAA may aid in remedying these types of situations, it does not appear that cut and dry. The House v. NCAA settlement proposal prescribes a plethora of provisions relating to NIL, with stricter NCAA enforcement on payment to student athletes.

    However, the settlement is still early in the litigation process and the proposed restrictions are not directly applicable to the facts of Sluka’s dilemma. Moreover, the role of NIL collectives in the post-House settlement world remains unclear. Because the upshot of the settlement would likely be more scrutinization on “pay for play,” in the future, situations like Sluka’s may become even more common.

    Takeaways

    Sluka’s situation will undoubtedly invoke a mixed range of opinions; some may see his departure as pompous and uncompetitive, while others may see it as a student athlete fighting the good fight against a bureaucratic entity. It is difficult to determine the proper recourse for a student athlete like Sluka moving forward. The NIL compensatory scheme as it relates to contracts is seemingly a catch 22. If a student athlete and a university enter into a defined written agreement, absent any collective involvement, this will almost certainly raise some red flags under the NCAA Bylaws and “pay for play” restrictions, placing the university in a vulnerable spot.

    However, entering into a strictly oral agreement like Sluka’s carries its own arsenal of concerns, namely, questions on enforceability. Perhaps, the best course of action would be for the university to work as closely as possible alongside its collective to ensure that the collective can foot the bill for a student athlete’s NIL compensation. Under this framework, the collective can engage in a written agreement with a student athlete, thereby reducing the contractual uncertainties that may be brought about in a situation like Sluka’s, leading to greater enforceability mechanisms. Importantly, and in addition to having a written NIL agreement, student-athletes should work with experienced athlete agents and counsel to mitigate the possibility of NIL contract disputes.

  • NIL Representation Agreements: What Athletes and Agents Need to Know

    When the NCAA amended its amateurism bylaws on July 1, 2021, the Association removed a handful of key restrictions that were previously placed upon collegiate “student-athletes.” In addition to the ability to sign name, image, and likeness (NIL) endorsement deals, athletes were permitted to sign with sports agents to represent them. While the NCAA has restricted agent activity to be for marketing purposes only (i.e., no professional player agent representation agreements are permitted, only NIL representation agreements), the definition of “NIL” has ebbed and flowed over the three years it has been in effect to be inclusive of more activities that may not have initially been envisioned. Thanks to a handful of lawsuits, state legislative activity, and a proposed legal settlement (House), NIL has come to include activity that is akin to pay-for-play—originally impermissible under the original NCAA interim NIL policy.

    Background

    While some athletics administrators and even legislators have noted a difference between “true” NIL marketing deals and NIL collective agreements, their legal operation—at least for now—is quite similar. Moreover, the sports agents that represent athletes in contract negotiations are governed by the same laws, regardless of whether they are negotiating a “true” NIL marketing deal or a collective contract. 

    Athletes across the country have received countless hours of education related to NIL contracts. Many universities have prioritized—and rightfully so—providing athletes with the resources they need to navigate and understand NIL agreements successfully. Athletes have been warned extensively about the pitfalls of signing bad NIL deals, including the potential for eligibility issues, intellectual property issues, and financial issues, to name a few. Even more critical than well-drafted and favorable NIL deals (at least in the eyes of this practitioner) is a comprehensive and legally compliant representation agreement between athlete and agent. 

    Why it Matters 

    In most circumstances, “NIL agents” are treated by the law the same as professional sports player agents. Most states—but not all—treat both as “athlete agents” and subject them to licensing requirements and regulation. While state law often treats both types of agents the same, there is one glaring difference: union certification and regulation. Professional sports player agents are subject to several rules set forth by a players association. Usually, there are minimum educational requirements, and the agent must pass an exam and pay a substantial amount in dues to the union. Additionally, agent conduct is subject to union oversight—bad or unethical agents can face consequences, including losing their ability to represent players. 

    What Athletes and their Agents Need to Know

    Professional player agent representation agreements are usually standardized by a union. As an example, the National Basketball Players Association (NBPA) Standard Player Agent Contract (SPAC) is required for all representation agreements between NBPA-certified agents and NBA players. Agents and athletes have no ability to modify contract language or clauses for concerns like arbitration or intellectual property. Otherwise, there are blank spaces in the SPAC that the athlete and agent fill in for items like the agent’s commission rate (which is a range that is set by the union). 

    Contrarily, NIL agents and the athletes signing with them have no standard representation agreement. As a byproduct, representation agreements can vary greatly. Some agents even begin working with athletes without a written agreement at all. It is imperative that athletes and agents alike understand the implications and importance of a well-drafted and legally compliant representation agreement. 

    The Implications 

    Typically, an athlete stands to lose much more from a bad representation agreement than he or she might from a bad NIL deal—the stakes are simply much larger. Particularly in an era where agents are rumored to be taking a 20% (or more) commission on six-figure NIL collective deals, athletes should be extremely cautious when signing a representation agreement. Moreover (and perhaps this concern should belong more to agents than to athletes), representation agreements that do not conform to the requirements of a state regulatory scheme are typically voidable by the athlete and potentially punishable by fines or jail time for the agent.

    As discussed extensively elsewhere, NIL contracts are incredibly important. NIL representation agreements are even more important. Here are more extensive discussions on the legal implications for NIL agents and the questions that athletes should ask agents before hiring them. Consider working with legal counsel prior to entering into an NIL agent representation agreement. 

  • NCAA Adopts New NIL Legislation for Coming Academic Year

    On August 1, 2024, the NCAA’s new Bylaw 22 went into effect. With this change, the NCAA has adopted new bylaws for the upcoming academic year. Notably, the new bylaws change legislation regarding name, image, and likeness (NIL). The new bylaws supersede the NCAA’s Interim NIL Policy and subsequent guidance that was put in place in July of 2021, and updated periodically thereafter. The new bylaws provide more clarity and direction–and perhaps finality–on several NIL-related issues, including the level of institutional involvement that is permitted. 

    What is Staying the Same

    The new NCAA bylaws still permit student-athletes to earn compensation for their name, image, and likeness. Likewise, they continue to prevent institutions from compensating student-athletes directly—although this is likely to change during the 2025-26 academic year, after the House case has been settled. State NIL laws still remain a patchwork, and no federal NIL legislation has been put in place, despite the NCAA and others calling for uniformity.

    For example, the Virginia state legislature has modified their state NIL legislation to allow institutions to pay student-athletes for the use of their NIL directly, which is inconsistent with current NCAA legislation. At the moment, it remains unclear how the NCAA bylaws that prohibit institutional compensation and conflicting state laws will interact, especially given the NCAA’s recent losses in court for antitrust violations.

    Key Changes in the New NCAA NIL Legislation

    Institutional Involvement

    Notably, the new NIL bylaws permit certain institutional involvement, allowing institutions to provide assistance and services such as identifying NIL opportunities and facilitating deals between student-athletes and third parties, provided that the student-athlete does not receive direct compensation from the institution for the use of the student-athlete’s NIL. This new bylaw is a change of direction from the Interim Policy, which prohibited athletic department staff and those acting on behalf of the department from representing student-athletes in NIL deals.

    Disclosure Requirements

    The new Bylaws also changed the requirements that were adopted in early 2024 (but would not have gone into effect until August) that required students to disclose all NIL activities or risk ineligibility. Now, NIL activity disclosure is voluntary, but with a catch. Students who wish to have NIL assistance and services from their institution must disclose all NIL activities and engagements of $600 or more in value. The new bylaws lay out the required disclosure information in section 22.2.3.1, which includes disclosure of names and contact information of involved parties, a description of the nature of the relationship between such individuals, terms of the deal, and disclosure within 30 days of entering into the agreement.  

    These new bylaws incentivize student-athletes to disclose NIL activity, but do not mandate it, granting more flexibility and autonomy to student-athletes. Simultaneously, universities and institutions are now permitted to be more involved with student-athletes on the NIL front, now able to advise and assist their athletes on name, image, and likeness opportunities. The new NCAA Bylaws are a step in the right direction, providing clarity and guidance on some of the stress points on NIL. However, others remain, such as the conflicting state legislation in Virginia. The NCAA is anticipated to release another NIL Q&A (the last published in June of last year) which may provide some additional clarity in the near future. For now, the new NCAA Bylaws adopted for the coming academic year are a step in the right direction for the NCAA to better align itself with the current market realities of college athletics. 

  • NIL Litigation Heats Up with Two Major Cases

    College athletics has been in a state of constant regulatory change since the NCAA’s decision to permit athletes to monetize their name, image, and likeness (NIL) nearly three years ago. In addition to several rounds of NCAA NIL guidance, there have been legislative changes at the state level, introduced federal legislation, and multiple lawsuits that continue to impact intercollegiate athletics. While the NCAA and its autonomy conferences have agreed to a settlement in the House case, all involved parties are hoping for more stability in the legal landscape. As universities, conferences, and the NCAA are waiting for more definitiveness, two top players are now engaged in NIL litigation.

    Although college athletes have been able to receive compensation for their NIL and are set to receive a portion of conference media revenue after the House settlement goes into effect, there have been various legal challenges that have come with the increased opportunities. Two high-profile football stars, Marvin Harrison Jr. and Jaden Rashada, are currently involved in legal disputes centered around NIL contracts.

    Fanatics’ Lawsuit Against Marvin Harrison Jr.

    Apparel manufacturer Fanatics has filed a lawsuit against first-round NFL draft pick and former Ohio State star Marvin Harrison Jr., alleging that Harrison Jr. breached his licensing and promotions contract. Fanatics is seeking actual and punitive damages in addition to equitable relief. According to the complaint, Fanatics and Harrison Jr. entered into an initial contract in March 2023 that was set to last one year and expire before Harrison Jr. entered the NFL draft. Upon realizing that Harrison Jr. had more potential, Fanatics approached Harrison Jr. regarding a long-term, more substantive agreement.

    According to Fanatics, the parties formalized their negotiations in the form of the “Binding Term Sheet,” which it claims Harrison Jr. signed on May 16, 2023. Fanatics signed the Binding Term Sheet two days later, on May 18. Subsequently, Harrison Jr. refused to fulfill his obligations of the alleged contract, eventually publicly rejecting the contract. Harrison Jr. stated publicly that he never had a trading card deal with Fanatics and that when Fanatics approached him, he said “we’re not taking that deal, we’re not signing that deal.” Harrison Jr. then told Fanatics if they would like to continue any business relationship with him, they must match competing offers that he had allegedly received.

    The facts in the case are disputed—more information may come to light through discovery and other steps in the litigation—with Fanatics saying there is a signed binding contract, while Harrison Jr. saying he never signed an agreement. This litigation will hinge on the question of whether Harrison Jr. agreed to the contract, thereby assenting to the terms of the Binding Term Sheet. If he did so, Harrison Jr. may be on the hook for the damages Fanatics is seeking.

    Probable Next Steps in the NIL Litigation Process

    Marvin Harrison Jr. is going to have an uphill battle in defending this lawsuit. While it remains to be seen what arguments he chooses to pursue, the argument that he did not enter into a binding contract with Fanatics has one major hurdle—Harrison Jr. accepted payments from Fanatics. Regardless of the arguments he chooses to make, it is possible that the litigation could be moved to a different venue, such as federal court. Likewise, depending on the language contained in the disputed Binding Term Sheet, the parties could move the dispute to mediation or arbitration.

    Jaden Rashada’s Lawsuit Against UF Head Coach and Boosters

    Harrison Jr. is not the only athlete engaged in an NIL-related legal dispute. Former University of Florida (UF) football recruit Jaden Rashada is suing head coach Billy Napier, Marcus Castro-Walker, the former UF Director of NIL, and Hugh Hathcock, a UF athletics booster, for fraud, fraudulent inducement, tortious interference, and negligent misrepresentation. Rashada originally had committed to the University of Miami with a promised NIL contract of $9.5 million but was convinced to flip his commitment to Florida by Napier and Hathcock. According to the complaint, Napier, Hathcock, and other individuals with ties to the UF-affiliated NIL collective gave Rashada various promises and assertions to induce Rashada to flip his commitment to UF. This “pressure campaign” included besting Miami’s $9.5 million NIL offer by more than $4 million, with one of $13.85 million, including a $500,000 signing bonus.

    After successfully convincing Rashada to decommit from Miami, the complaint alleges that the defendants failed to honor their financial commitments to Jaden, continuing to promise that the money was coming, stringing Jaden along while making sure he kept his commitment to Florida. After there was some hesitation from Rashada on signing day, Napier allegedly personally called Rashada and promised that $1 million of the promised money would be given to him once he signed his National Letter of Intent with UF. Relying on Napier’s promise, Jaden was induced to sign the Letter of Intent, yet in the weeks afterward no payment was made, and more false promises were given. Rashada eventually grew tired of the empty promises, decommitting from Florida a month later. He ultimately attended Arizona State University for his freshman year of college and transferred to UF’s SEC rival, Georgia, this past NCAA transfer window.

    Rashada’s Claims

    Rashada’s claims against Napier and the UF boosters are for fraud and fraudulent inducement. He claims that the UF-affiliated individuals fraudulently induced him to abandon his NIL opportunities with Miami-affiliated boosters. Furthermore, by promising dollar figures to Rashada that the UF-affiliated individuals allegedly knew they could not meet, Rashada claims they defrauded him.

    Notably, Rashada did not file a suit for breach of contract—otherwise, his claims are limited to fraud, fraudulent inducement, and tortious interference. Napier and the UF-affiliated individuals are likely to move to dismiss Rashada’s suit. There are a variety of arguments that they could make. It is likely that they will argue that the facts do not meet the elements of fraud and fraudulent inducement. Specifically, that there was no knowledge on the parties that they would not be paying Rashada and that they did not intend to deceive him.

    Key Takeaways:

    Despite the uncertainties in both cases, there are clear takeaways for all collegiate athletes.

    Competent Representation is Critical

    Particularly under the facts of the Fanatics agreement with Marvin Harrison Jr., it is apparent that he did not understand what he may have been agreeing to. Throughout his negotiations with Fanatics, he was represented by his father, NFL Hall of Famer Marvin Harrison Sr. While Harrison Sr. had a prolific collegiate and NFL career in his own right, his skills negotiating and understanding NIL contracts may not be as refined as his ability to catch a football. Unfortunately, choosing not to retain legal counsel for these contract negotiations seems to be to Harrison Jr.’s detriment.

    All Contracts Should be in Writing

    As an NCAA athlete, oral promises and assertions should not be sufficient for committing to a particular college. If coaches, boosters, or others promise you something, it is best to have a written, signed, compliant, and enforceable contract. While the allure of an NIL contract or other lucrative promises may be enticing for an amateur athlete who has likely not received substantial compensation before, it is important to protect yourself with a well-drafted contract.

    Understanding the Bargained for Exchange

    Likewise, athletes should be aware that contracts work in both ways and that your signature is a tool that may bind you to contractual obligations as well. When two parties agree to a contract, they each owe the other something. For NIL contracts, it is typically a payment (from sponsors) and a license to use the athlete’s NIL or sponsored social media posts (from the athlete). Once a contract is signed and consideration is paid to the athlete, the athlete has the obligation to fulfill their commitments—whether that be allowing the sponsor to utilize their NIL or by posting specific content on their social media accounts.

    Long-Term Effects of NIL Contracts

    As demonstrated by Fanatics’ lawsuit against Marvin Harrison Jr., NIL contracts signed by collegiate athletes can potentially adversely affect them at the next level. NIL agreements made in college are often for terms that last beyond an athlete’s collegiate eligibility.

    For complex, high-value, and long-term NIL contracts, it is advisable to have an experienced attorney review any agreements to notify and advise you of the legal obligations and ramifications that may lie within. Moreover, it is recommended to work with counsel in conjunction with an NIL agent, as both are equipped to provide different services.

  • Zion Williamson Wins Appellate Case Against Former Agent

    The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has ruled in favor of Zion Williamson in his lawsuit against his former marketing agency, Prime Sports Marketing. The case primarily dealt with the North Carolina Uniform Athlete Agents Act. While most states have implemented a version of the Uniform Athlete Agents Act (including North Carolina), the laws do not come under judicial scrutiny frequently. As such, this case provides important context and guidance for athlete agents going forward. 

    Procedural History 

    Williamson filed the lawsuit in federal court, seeking a declaratory judgment that Prime and its agents violated the North Carolina Uniform Athlete Agents Act and that his contract with Prime was void. Prime counterclaimed, seeking $100 million in damages from Williamson for breaching their agreement. The district court ruled in favor of Williamson. It found that he was a protected “student-athlete” under North Carolina law and that Prime had violated the Act. Prime appealed the district court’s decision to the Fourth Circuit. 

    Key Facts 

    Gina Ford—Prime’s agent who inked the deal with Williamson—was not registered as an athlete agent in North Carolina when the contract was signed. Moreover, the contract did not contain the correctly formatted warnings and disclosures required by the North Carolina Uniform Athlete Agents Act. The five-year contract was signed shortly after Williamson had declared for the NBA draft. A month after signing the agreement with Prime, Williamson terminated the contract. He then signed a marketing representation agreement with CAA, who also represents him as a player agent. 

    The Court’s Holding 

    Zion Williamson was, at the time of the contract signing, a student-athlete eligible to be protected by the North Carolina Uniform Athlete Agents Act. Because Prime failed to comply with the requirements of the Act, the contract it signed with Williamson was void. Moreover, while Williamson may have violated some NCAA rules at some point, he was not “permanently ineligible” to participate in NCAA competition as Prime had argued. The court declined to assume what the NCAA might have done in determining Williamson’s eligibility if it was presented with that decision. 

    Why it Matters

    Although much has changed in the college athletics landscape since Zion Williamson signed the contract in question with Prime, one thing notably has not: state and federal athlete agent laws. While the NCAA and state NIL laws have allowed college athletes to sign marketing representation agreements with agents and maintain their collegiate eligibility, agents still retain the same restrictions and requirements that were previously in place.

    Takeaways for Athlete Agents

    • In most—but not all—jurisdictions, “player agents” and “marketing agents” are treated the same. Registration is typically required, and contracts typically must meet certain requirements.
    • Ultimately, it does not matter what the agent calls themself: player agent, NIL agent, athlete agent, sports agent, marketing agent, brand advisor, marketing consultant… etc. What matters is what they do for the athlete. “Negotiating” or “soliciting” endorsement deals on behalf of an athlete is usually enough to trigger the registration and disclosure requirements.
    • Failure of an agent to register and meet the state athlete agent act requirements can result in a contract being void or voidable. This leaves all the power and flexibility in the athlete’s hands.
    • Even though Williamson’s case stems from a contract that was signed before NIL rules went into effect, the same athlete agent laws are in place. The last update to the UAAA was in 2019, prior to the NIL era.
    • Being registered in one state does not mean that an agent does not need to register in another state. Most agents likely must register in more than one state. Moreover, some state laws have differing requirements from other states.
    • Failing to meet the requirements of a state athlete agent act is not limited to a void representation agreement—most of the state laws include civil and criminal penalties, such as a fine and jail time.
    • For professional athlete “player agents,” there are typically uniform representation agreements that are required by the unions. Marketing agents and “NIL agents” do not have uniform contracts to use. Thus, compliance with athlete agent laws is even more critical. 

    Click here for more information on the legal implications for NIL agents. Consider working with experienced counsel for assistance with drafting agency representation agreements and to ensure compliance with athlete agent laws.

  • Frieser Legal Provided Counsel to Top-Ranked Football Recruit on Suspension

    Frieser Legal advised five-star safety Trey McNutt during his eligibility dispute with the Ohio High School Athletic Association (OHSAA). McNutt was suspended by the OHSAA in February for competing in offseason 7-on-7 tournaments, which violated an Association rule prohibiting football players from competing in certain non-school events.

    With counsel from Principal Attorney Joshua Frieser, the OHSAA removed its 7-on-7 competition restriction and lifted McNutt’s suspension. Media coverage of the rule change can be found here.

    Related Professionals

    Joshua M. Frieser, Esq.

    Principal Attorney, Frieser Legal

    josh@frieserlegal.com | (414) 200-9199

    Joshua M. Frieser, Esq. is a sports and business lawyer and Principal Attorney at Frieser Legal. His practice is focused on the representation of athletes, agents, and sports businesses. While working to solve the unique legal needs that they have, Josh represents athletes in internal disciplinary proceedings and NIL licensing agreements, as well as in related intellectual property and business planning matters. In addition to serving as counsel to college and professional athletes, Josh represents sports agents and sports industry ventures as outside counsel.

Privacy Policy Privacy Policy